re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv

At 3:35 AM 12/6/95, Anonymous wrote:
>Tim May 12/5/95 6:25 PM:
>>One "defensible" (and maybe even good) reason is because someone with
>>government clearance can then be prosecuted for leaking what they know,
>>whereas ordinary citizens are harder to prosecute for this. I doubt this is
>>the main reason, but it makes a certain kind of sense.
>
> Nice point, though I too doubt that's the reason: if *every* agent
>needed to be cleared, then this clearance stipulation would serve nicely,
>but if only *one* at every escrow agency needs to be cleared...
No, I didn't make that basic a logical blunder. What I was thinking, even
if I didn't go into it, is that the "cleared" agent would be the one within
the office who would actually handle the surveillance.
But I do think the more basic reason is really that the intelligence
agencies want a direct channel to "their" guy.
I'm really pleased to hear about the 20% attendance. Nothing trivializes a
program more than being ignored.
--Tim May
Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."